(FROM:..Your name) (Your address) (your city, state, zip)
Dear (insert name here):
To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY ie., city council, etc,)that would fail all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. .
The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited. However, these very breeds as a whole have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.
Our Country was not founded on the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few....when has this changed?
A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls", concluded in part that:
..statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, ..when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. .. focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.
In light of this and other studies, we urge you to take the following actions:
1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.
2. Actively pursue legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.
We suggest that the appropriate policy should be "blame the owner, not the dog." Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets.
Bottom line: the legislation proposed will not only be unfair for responsible citizens but it addresses the wrong problem. Voting for this proposal as it stands only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.